Is it true that only the original autographs of the Biblical manuscripts are given by inspiration of God?

Did you know that modern Christian scholars hold to a useless idea of the inspired Bible?

When they talk about the Inspired word of God, they actually don’t mean any Bible you have access to?

Book by John R Rice, Our God-Breathed Bible.

“Inspiration is claimed only for original autographs not for translation or copying… inspiration refers to the original autographs”

That is the standard position adopted in thousands of statements of faith. God’s word is perfect and inspired… in the original autographs.

There is only one verse in the Bible that claims Scripture is given by inspiration. 2Ti 3:16

The claim is that God only inspired the originals. Well that’s what men say. What about the context? What does God say?

2Ti 315

Whatever this “scripture given by inspiration” is, Timothy had it.

What if inspiration only applies to the original autographs (none of which exist)?
scripture is given by inspiration of God
is profitable for doctrine
for reproof
for correction
for instruction in righteousness
These are intrinsic attributes of the word of God. We don’t get to pick and choose. If it’s profitable for doctrine, it’s also got to be given by inspiration of God.

We could stop here. If you believe the Bible knows what it is talking about, you don’t need anything else to know that modern scholarship is totally off the reservation when it comes to the “doctrine of inspiration.”

But where did the idea of “originals onlyism” come from? As we see, it is impossible to derive such a doctrine from what the Bible has to say. So where did the idea that only the originals autographs are inerrant and inspired come from?

Church historian Philip Shaff’s book A General Introduction to the Study of Theology states (page 393)

“The distinction between ‘inerrant autographs’ and errant copies seems to have been first made by Richard Simon (1638-1712), the father of biblical isagogic, to prove the necessity of textual criticism.”

Richard Simon was a French Catholic Priest who argued against the authority of the Bible in his book A Critical History of the Old Testament (1682).

Simon argues against basic truths such as the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible and presents a theology of Scripture that was designed to empower the Catholic Church and minimize the role of Scripture.

Now the interesting thing about Simon’s doctrine is not just that he was the first to limit inspiration to a historical singularity, but why he did it. Shaff says he does this to prove the necessity of Textual Criticism, but that is only part of it.

Simon argued that there was “original” Scripture by God and later amendments and reductions provided by men which were perfectly valid, and also errors introduced over time and transcription. He was teaching that inspiration is not intrinsic in God’s word, and that the Bible therefore is not in authority over the learned men of the Catholic church.

Was this novel idea of “originals only” inspiration accepted by Protestants? Of course not! They weren’t about to let some French Priest rope them into papal superstition on the basis that God’s word was inspired only in the originals!

This papist doctrine of inspiration was essentially ignored for a couple of centuries. It’s hard to find many who took these ideas seriously in following 200 years. While commentators talked about what inspiration means, offered theories on how it works, and the like, the understanding was still that inspiration is intrinsic in the word of God; that it is the continual force of a living God.

Here’s what John Wesley wrote in 1754 in his commentary on 2nd Timothy:

“The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it, but continually inspires, supernaturally assists, those that read it with earnest prayer.”

Wesley understood inspiration the way it was described in the book of Job:

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Enter German Rationalism in the 19th century.
Christians were beset on all sides by Satanic attacks on the verity of Scriptural authority. The claims of modern geologists, archaeologists, darwinists, and secular historians grew ever louder with supposed proofs of the errors of the Bible.

Let’s look back at Shaff’s note which we examined earlier:

Drs. A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, the successors of Charles Hodge in the theological chair at Princeton, confine inerrancy to these non-existing original autographs. See “Princeton Review” for 1881, p. 238.

Shaff here says they confine “inerrancy” to the originals, but as we’ll see in a second, they actually confine inspiration and inerrancy to the originals.

Indeed, Rice in this book I showed you earlier several times cites Warfield as an authority on inspiration.

What are they talking about?

The idea that only the originals carry final divine authority, infallibility, and inerrancy was coopted from the tomes of Catholic superstition and re-framed as a feeble response to charges of errors in the Bible from “higher criticism.”

In 1881, B. B. Warfield and A. A. Hodge championed and popularized the idea of “inspired originals” in an article they published in the Presbyterian Review. In responding to charges of errors in the Bible, Warfield and Hodge crafted a statement of the doctrine of Inspiration which included the ultimate cop-out:

(Page 245) “We do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic text was inspired. No ‘error’ can be asserted, therefore, which cannot be proved to have been aboriginal in the text.”

Very convenient, isn’t it? Ultimately the originals, which nobody has and nobody can review, did not contain any error, so the doctrine of Inspiration, and along with it inerrancy, is safe and sound.

That is what makes the modern idea of inspiration so appealing: there is no final authority to examine.

Note here that they say the original text “was” inspired. That’s a very different position from the present tense “is inspired.”

Warfield and Hodge make a reference to the Westminster Confession of Faith (page 240). What does it say? Shaff creeds:

(list of 66 books of the canon) “All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.” Present tense. Written in 1647.

So Hodge and Warfield drop the present and continual fact of inspiration in favor of a historical singularity.

Instead of accepting the Biblical usage of inspiration in the Bible as the Westminster Confession did, Warfield and Hodge re-defined it:

(Page 225-226) “…the mere fact of Inspiration on the other hand, or the superintendence by God of the writers in the entire process of their writing, which accounts for nothing whatever but the absolute infallibility of the record in which the revelation, once generated, appears in the original autograph.”

The problem is, this entire concept is nowhere to be found in Scripture. It’s also the zenith of unbelief and intellectual cowardice. While it may seem like a matter of faith to say that God’s original copies were infallible, it’s a “faith” that can never be tested. It’s a faith that never withstands scrutiny because it is impossible to scrutinize something that doesn’t exist.

Warfield’s new definition, which is hardly any different from Richard Simon’s, caused quite a stir when he proposed it. But in the end, the unrelenting attacks from rationalists proved too much for intellectual minds to bear, and so now this non-Scriptural definition of the inspiration of Scripture gained a foothold and now prevails.

So there you have it: the origin and adoption of “orginal authograph onlyism.“

Side note: B. B. Warfield later went on to teach that nothing in Darwin’s theory of Evolution was in opposition to the Scriptures.

34 thoughts on “Video: Inspiration: The Original Autographs Only?”

As far as anybody can show, Richard Simon was the first to connect inspiration-inerrancy with originals. I could have shown images of the book where he ties inspiration to the originals… anyway, the idea started to gain traction in the mid-1800s and Warfield was really the one who made it mainstream by formulating a formal “doctrine” of originals-only inspiration.

I firmly believe, with all my God-given heart and intellect, that the Authorised King James Bible was, is and continues to be the inspiration of God Our Father.
No mere disparate group of men could write with such corroborative intricacy, over such a vast distance of time and space, with such unerring doctrinal truth and accuracy as is found in this blessed book. Are we all supposed to learn Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin to hear The Word of God? No, in His kindness to us, he’s made it simple enough for the unlearned to hear The Word of their salvation.
If any doubt at all is even suggested about the truth and verity of the only Word that God has given men whereby they must be saved, we’ll be left without a doctrine, without a hope and without a God.
May our God and Father bless and increase you sir in your courageous defence of His property.

Those people that claim you have to go to the original Greek speak falsely. They have never ever seen the original greek because it does not exist. Not everyone is a scholar in Greek. Probably most use someone else Greek study guides and have never studied Greek nor are able read Greek. I believe we have the word of God in the King James Version. Ever since all hundred or so versions have came out there is so much apostasy and false teaching out there. Must look how much God blessed the King James Version over years and all great revivals that were held. Today there is none. MATT 7:14 will be quoted to many at judgement day. So many so called Christians will be shocked.

Thank you, Brandon! I always appreciate your defense of God’s Holy Word. I agree that this position of once inspired is intellectual cowardice. Why, oh why, do we not take seriously the warnings of scripture that we have amongst us wolves, false brethren, deceitful workers, etc.? If the fruit is unbelief, this aught to tell us what the spirit is, right. If a “Christian” confesses disbelief in God’s providence what conclusion must we draw – they are not a Christian, or at the least they are in error. Period. But, oh, that is so unloving they say. The love is always upheld by truth – it can not be love if it is not set in truth! Oh, foolish Modernists (wise, wise man), who hath bewitched you, that ye should not believe the truth?
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.
We lean unto our own understanding, seeing ourselves as wise, ignoring the counsel of God to our own hurt and destruction.

Very interesting indeed. I have Shaff’s church history and will look this up. Thanks for the article. I have been quoting the statement about showing the inspired Scripture in your hand for couple years or more now, and so far no one who does not hold to the accuracy, inerrancy and divine providentially preserved AV has ever been able to unequivocally claim such a Bible.

So all of the translations of KJV prior to 1611 should be also inspired, right? If not, why only the 1611 is supposed to be inspired and the others were not? How do you know? Please explain. You folks are the kings of circular reasoning! Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. ONCE and that was long before 1611! John R. Rice as one of your authorities??? well…at least not as bad as your other authority, Peter Ruckman.

Inspiration is intrinsic to God’s word. That is my point. Do you still disagree with that? Would you care to explain a Biblical theology of inspiration that accounts for Paul’s claim in 2Ti 3:15-16, that Timothy possessed inspired scripture?

Your point is excellently made, Brandon, but it seems that your reasoning can be picked up by those who go with such as the RSV of 1952 or the currently most recent, the New New International Version. What do you say to these students of of what God has said? I think you know the contradictions in question.

I’m not aware of anyone who uses the NIV/RSV/etc who would agree that the RSV is the inspired word of God, when pressed on it. But anyway, we would simply move to one of the many other questions in this issue, such as the source of the texts of the RSV, the omissions of verses, the alterations of prophecy, etc. I would be perfectly happy to find agreement with a modern version supporter that the word of God is intrinsically inspired– it would likely make the rest of the discussion more fruitful.

Thanks for your reply Brandon, but the issue I was seeking input on is the one of the fluidity of God’s word and his perfect directing of this fluidity. For instance, I believe the KJV to be the unique inspired word of God in English for the Christianized world in 1611; A new creation given to the world by God. From such a viewpoint, then, it would be true that the NEW – NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION is the similarly Devinely inspired word for our day.
The reasoning used for this understanding is that the world in which we are living is undergoing a watershed change and therefore a commensurate watershed change in God’s word is managed over by God to match the change occurring in the world. That’s why starting with the RSV New Testament in 1945, we have experienced such a bewildering flood of bible versions. This would be a manifestation of God’s promised execution of his perfectly orchestrated plan in conjunction with the close of the times of the gentiles and his regathering of his (God the father’s) chosen people. The promise of Jesus is over. (Compare the NNIV promise to Abraham for example. The promise now more perfectly matches what is in the world today.) It recalls Paul’s words, “There being a change in the law, There must of necessity be a change in the priesthood.” ergo: There being a change in the physical existence of the state of Israel, there must of necessity be a change in the emphasis of the promise to Abraham in today’s word.
I am anticipating from the discussion so far that you have given this doctrine no specific consideration. But I would be interested in your responsive thoughts on it.
I would reiterate that this is not by the will of man, but would be by God’s predestinating actions set before the world began.
PS. The opinion of those who read a book does not matter in this case. What the book, in fact is, is the consideration here.

The NIV and the KJV are both “inspired” on Acts 8:37? God is not the author of confusion (1Co 14:33). If God were “in” these modern translations, they would not have to be based on a manuscript tradition God did not use. If God were “in” it there would not be a 100 English translations to choose from — one that suits you if you don’t like “gender references” and another if you dislike God’s hatred of sodomy. The theory that this flood of confusion and conflicting authority is God’s plan for his word is just ridiculous.

When I was very young, the world followed the Church. It was against the law for a couple to live together if they were not married. Homosexuality was never a topic of discussion for any reason. Taverns and liquor stores were closed on Sunday. In fact, the beer and wine section at the grocery store was roped off on Sunday. Divorce was almost unheard of and cause for divorce had to be proven in court. Today, the Church is tripping all over itself to be just like the world. There are rock-and-roll bands up on stage and it is called “worship music”. Women dress like prostitutes to come to church. The divorce rate in church is equal to and sometimes even higher than in the world. How did this happen? The new versions have taught us that the Church has to keep changing to match culture. But we are supposed to change culture to match the Bible. The very existence of the versions discredits the authority of Scripture before the books are even open. “Thus saith the Lord” has become; “What does your version say?” This leaves everything open to opinion. The Bible does not come in versions. There has only ever been one Bible. There is one God. There are many counterfeit gods. There is one Church. There are many counterfeit churches. There is one Bible. There are many counterfeit bibles.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” and that this inspired scripture not was, but is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works”. So this inspired scripture must be available to me right now.

It is easy to show that the Geneva was not inspired. Malachi 2:16 says about divorce :”If thou hatest her, put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel.” Truth is not found by comparing versions with text books that claim to be original, truth is confirmed in the context of the Bible itself. God’s doctrine is so intertwined that it is impossible to remove it with Satan’s subtle tactics. But all Satan has to do is introduce doubt and loopholes for liberals to use. One popular loophole is the divorce-remarriage issue. It is made clear that if you divorce your wife, you cause her to commit adultery and if you marry a divorced woman, you commit adultery. But liberals go for the loophole that does not exist in the KJB. The liberal versions have Jesus saying that He does not permit divorce except for adultery or even the more ambiguous immorality. But the Bible records Jesus correctly as saying; “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” This is an entirely different concept, when using the context of the entire Bible for clarification (Even the context of the same verse.) A bride and groom are supposed to be virgins. If during the consummation ceremony, the bride is found to be without a hymen, the groom has the option, not the obligation to divorce her. Changing the word “fornication” to adultery goes against Jesus’ clear teaching that adultery is to be forgiven. Satan seeks to destroy families. And he can accomplish much by making subtle changes in God’s Word, especially since he has taught “scholars” to use perverted text books to “correct” the Bible. And he has taught these “scholars” to call the perverted text books “the Original Greek”. It is my personal opinion that there was no perfect 66 book Bible before 1611 and there has been none since. I am satisfied that the book that was erroneously named “The King James Version” is God’s Word perfectly preserved In English for the last days. I collect pre-Thomas Nelson Bibles that are KJB without a name of any kind except The Holy Bible. The freedom I enjoy is astonishing to be able to read any and every verse in the KJB and confidently proclaim “Thus saith the Lord!”

Thank you for the Godly and informative work. To argue against inspiration and add extra points of view that neglects the clear “All scripture is given by inspiration” that you present. Thank you for the stand, which is always Biblically based.

Your timing was spot on with this message on Inspiration. Our own pastor spoke for 4 weeks on the Bible, not to reinforce the Church’s stance for the only the King James Bible, but to “share” his compromising views on “other Bibles”. I was an embarassing revelation to witness and a terrible time to be a member of a “conservative, traditional, and fundamental” Baptist Church that we started nearly 15 years ago. Our pastor, Tobe Witmer, is a graduate of Bob Jones University and was a “closet” critical text supporter. In fact, if you want to view his (Pastor Witmer) 4 Sunday morning messages (which finished last week on 5/2/15), you can access our church website, http://www.lbcde.org Under RESOURCES and then under SERMONS, you can view them on You-Tube. The messages are done in a series called Bible Preservation. The info that PW (Pastor Witmer) was not anything new, just recycled topics first espouses by Dr. Mark Minnick from Mount Calvary Church in Greenville, SC. If you need a fresh look for future topics to consider listen carefully to what PW “taught” us these last 4 weeks. We are currently behind the scenes bringing charges of gross violations of our Statement of Faith and the By- Laws contained with our Church Constitution.

I’m not sure that this “Leave a Reply” is the correct avenue to discuss this matter, but my personal e-mail is —-. We have “talked” before when I wrote you something about your previous postings. I love your demeanor and the simplicity of how you explain your thoughts! This morning, when I viewed your lastest posting on Inspiration, my soul was amazed when you mentioned Dr. John R. Rice’s book “Our God Breathed Bible” This book was listed as one of ten books that PW used as a resource in his “study” around the Bible Preservation series. One habit of PW is to use books of well respected personalities that “give him cover” to his (PW) own “treachery”. In other words, any statements that PW can use to make his case of subverting the King James Bible, he will use even well respected Fundamentalist of yesteryear! The list (partial) of books that PW used in found in his first message (4/12/15) named “Bible Preservation and Inspiration”
I’ve had a tremendous support of Dr. D.A. Waite, as he has critiqued each message that PW presented to our church. You comments would be equally good to have, if you chose to view the videos. Thanks for your latest video, a new topic would be a thoughtful expose on the Hebrew Septuagint, how it has been misrepresented as being totally complete, available and referenced by Jesus, in the 1st century, would be an interesting study and a relevant topic. Blessings and peace for you and yours, now and forever in the Lord!

My opinion of the parable of the sower is that we must first be open-minded enough to accept that Jesus kept His promise to preserve His Word. The more Truth we accept, the more God will open our eyes. I was taught to mock and ridicule what Thomas Nelson named “the King James Version” and so I did. I accepted for 25 years the church standard of original onlyism. Then I accepted a challenge to read it and it took about three weeks before the old-style language became both easier to read and easier to understand for me. I get discouraged when I try to share the wonderful news that we have a perfect Bible in English and even KJ-only pastors don’t believe it. They still want to correct it with text books that they have been trained to call “the original Greek”. I share your videos and people just don’t get it. It’s not just about providing evidence, it is spiritually discerned. Using the Bible’s definition of hate, I know tons of church people who hate the Bible. I was kicked out of a church where it is acceptable to prefer the King James Bible, but if you declare that it is perfect, you better keep your mouth shut or get out. A Pastor of another church warned me sternly to be quiet and I left on my own. “Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.10 For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. ” I wish I could go to church. But I can’t stand hearing a Pastor say “in the Greek, it REALLY means…” Thank you for your ministry. You are an encouragement to me.

I agree with the truth of an inspired word of God, but you use the word inspired incorrectly. It means “God-breathed.” The writers were not inspired, but the words were inspired. The issue, which you don’t deal with, is preservation. Once God breathed his Word, he continues to preserve it, which means every time we open our KJB, we are reading the inspired Word of God. Also, I wouldn’t run to the Westminster Confession of Faith to prove doctrine…

It doesn’t matter that modernists insist on the phrase “God-breathed” instead of “inspired,” because it makes no difference to the discussion or to the application. I do not accept the correction of the KJV’s translation on this word because I understand what “inspire” means in the English. You should view this video; it goes into more details on what inspiration really means. I may not talk about preservation in this video but I have gone over it many times before. The essential error of the Warfieldien doctrine of Inspiration is assuming it was a historical event, and that it is not something intrinsic to the word of God. Finally, I would not get my doctrine out of the Westminster Confession either. I show it only to provide evidence that the Warfieldian definition of inspiration was not being used in the mid 1600s.

Now let me add that I don’t think we are that far apart. I once liked to draw a line between inspiration and preservation, but came to understand that the two go hand-in-hand and are just two co-existing attributes of God’s word. What I am arguing against is the idea that inspiration is locked up in the past. It’s not. It’s in your King James Bible.

This is exactly how my KJ-only Pastor destroyed my faith. I was a new believer with a NAS that was given to me by the man who led me to the Lord, who belonged to a different church. This man mocked KJ-onlyism. But I was in a supposed KJ-only church. Every time the KJ-only Pastor would read a verse, he would pause and say “But in the Greek, it REALLY means…” and then he would quote directly from my NAS! I have come to believe that Bible colleges are Satanic and they are in place to make liberals and money and not disciples. I use the name D.P. to refer to any counterfeit “original” that is deliberately perverted with omissions or changes. Dr. Scofield based his popular notes on the D.P. Lexicons are based on the D.P. The ASB, RSV, NAS, NIV, NKJV, ESV and all modern versions are translated from the D.P. Bible colleges teach from the D.P. I have never seen one, but a friend of mine says he has a text book that he claims is the Textus Receptus and he says that it proves that the KJB ADDED Acts 8:37, so I suspect that the T.R. is counterfeit as well. (Not the real one, the text book.) According to the Bible, God calls a man to preach, then that man appoints godly men as deacons and tells them what to do. In our modern world, men appoint themselves to preach, then they go to Bible college to get indoctrinated on how to disbelieve the Bible and trust textbooks. Meanwhile, deacons are chosen by popular vote in the church, they hire a Pastor and they tell him what to do. I tell people that Psalm One forbids men to go to Bible college. What a mess these last days are!

I have been trading KJB right from the beginning. I have read other translations too but nothing changed my mind not to read and study KJB. English is not my mother tongue. I find it difficult to put forth my views. Nevertheless I believe KJB is the right Bible and this pastor ridiculed me for having a KJB during the sermon because he followed NIV. Then I got interested to find out how the modern translations came about. If Westcott and Hort were responsible for the modern translations why the men of God don’t see this Which I cannot understand. Though I have been reading many articles and replies I am not able to fully express myself here. One thing is sure that Word of God is very much corrupted in the modern translations. Still I believe God will raise up the future generation to like read and meditate God’s Word in KJB. Meanwhile I may face the redicule of those who carry NIV etc

I have gone through all your videos, posts and articles and I thank you sincerely for all the work and effort. Since being saved I have been a man on a mission studying the bible. Your clarity, logic and the use of Scripture and the Lord’s own words have been a real blessing for me as I now only study the KJB.

Brandon, I love your site. I would however, like to add another angle for your consideration. Let me start out by saying, because of info like yours, I have for years placed the KJV above all others; however, I cannot deny that God used the 1966 Jerusalem Bible when He spent a year proving to me that it was His Word and that it was never to be questioned or doubted again, that it didn’t matter how many hands it went through, because He got what He wanted in it. That was more than 30 years ago, and since then God has continued to speak to me through many modern versions and the KJV. Therefore, I think what Wesley said (“The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it, but continually inspires, supernaturally assists, those that read it with earnest prayer.”) is equally apt to the inspiration of modern translations. God inspires them too, not just the KJV; certainly, He uses them by inspiring the reader today. Inspiration is living, as God’s Word is living (Heb 4:12). My point is, we needn’t condemn (not that you are) other translations as not the Word of God; but rather we need to hold up the KJV as the most complete available. The Holy Spirit is the best confirmer and interpreter of the Word of God, for He wrote it. If He confirms a different translation, then who are we to argue. I don’t say that to detract one bit from what you say, just to add that God still uses other translations and they are quite useful in getting a better picture of the text’s meaning. I love God’s Word, no matter the translation, but I thank God for the KJV.

This site is second to none for information on the KJV. This video in particular was most illuminating. If your work can’t convince someone that the KJV is in fact “the Bible,” then none can. Thank you for being here.

Your article on inspiration is excellent. All of the negative comments simply illustrate critics have no bible they trust. Like Paul and Timothy, all Bible believers have always had the pure, inspired word of God–in their hand.
I have not met one preacher of any kind in churches/colleges/seminaries in over 25 years in the USA ministry, and 23 years on the foreign fields of Asia, Europe, Mexico, or S.A.,etc., that believed ANY BIBLE was inspired so as to be inerrant and infallible–except those who held the KJB IN THEIR HAND.

There is a great and grievous irony in folly of those today who have, like John Rice, been so deceived. It is that the scholars that they now follow reveal that they don’t even believe in the inspiration of the original autograph. Bruce Metzger, whom present day seminarians will cite as the highest authority, is one such scholar. In his book, which I was required to study in seminary, ‘The Text of the New Testament’ He makes the following comment on a difficulty in the critical text:
“Another instance of a manifestly erroneous reading is the ei tis splagxna kai oiktirmoi at Phil. 2:1, which could have arisen when the origional amananuensis misunderstood Paul’s pronunciation of ei ti splagxna … ”
In other words he believes that there was mistakes in the original autographa! There are several other places in which he makes similar statements. “For ye suffer fools gladly seeing ye yourselves are wise”